throbber

`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`———————
`
`IPR2022-00350
`U.S. Patent No. 9,806,565
`_____________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JOSHUA PHINNEY,
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 1 of 85
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,806,565
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4
`I.
`Qualifications and Professional Experience .................................................... 6
`II.
`III. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................. 10
`IV. Relevant Legal Standards .............................................................................. 11
`V.
`Background .................................................................................................... 13
`VI. Overview of the ’565 Patent .......................................................................... 15
`VII. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 18
`VIII. Identification of how the Claims are Unpatentable ....................................... 19
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-8 and 11-18 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 over Hong in view of Park. ....................................................... 19
`1.
`Summary of Hong .......................................................... 19
`2.
`Summary of Park ........................................................... 23
`3.
`Reasons to Combine Hong and Park ............................. 24
`4.
`Claim 1 ........................................................................... 29
`5.
`Claim 2 ........................................................................... 53
`6.
`Claim 3 ........................................................................... 55
`7.
`Claim 4 ........................................................................... 57
`8.
`Claim 5 ........................................................................... 58
`9.
`Claim 6 ........................................................................... 58
`10.
`Claim 7 ........................................................................... 61
`11.
`Claim 8 ........................................................................... 62
`12.
`Claim 11 ......................................................................... 63
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 2 of 85
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,806,565
`
`
`
`Claim 12 ......................................................................... 64
`13.
`Claim 13 ......................................................................... 66
`14.
`Claim 14 ......................................................................... 69
`15.
`Claim 15 ......................................................................... 69
`16.
`Claim 16 ......................................................................... 69
`17.
`Claim 17 ......................................................................... 69
`18.
`Claim 18 ......................................................................... 69
`19.
`Ground 2: Claims 9 and 19 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over Hong in view of Park and Hasegawa. ......................................... 70
`1.
`Summary of Hasegawa .................................................. 70
`2.
`Reasons to Combine Hasegawa with Hong ................... 72
`3.
`Claim 9 ........................................................................... 75
`4.
`Claim 19 ......................................................................... 77
`Ground 3: Claims 10 and 20 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over Hong in view of Park and Sung. ................................................. 78
`1.
`Summary of Sung .......................................................... 78
`2.
`Reasons to Combine Sung with Hong ........................... 78
`3.
`Claim 10 ......................................................................... 82
`4.
`Claim 20 ......................................................................... 84
`IX. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 85
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 3 of 85
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,806,565
`
`I, Joshua Phinney, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Apple Inc. in the matter
`
`of the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,806,565 (“the ’565 Patent”) to An
`
`et al.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at my standard
`
`hourly rate. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary expenses
`
`associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My compensation is
`
`not contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics of my testimony.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims 1-
`
`20 (“the Challenged Claims”) of the ’565 Patent are unpatentable as they would
`
`have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the
`
`time of the alleged invention, in light of the prior art. It is my opinion that all of the
`
`limitations of the challenged claims would have been obvious to a POSITA.
`
`4.
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Ex.1002;
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`
`
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied:
`
`the ’565 Patent, Ex.1001;
`
`the prosecution history of the ’565 Patent (“’565 File History”),
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,941,352 to Hong (“Hong”), Ex.1005;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,922,162 to Park et al. (“Park”), Ex.1006;
`
`4
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 4 of 85
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,806,565
`
`e.
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0021212 to
`
`Hasegawa et al. (“Hasegawa”), Ex.1007; and
`
`f.
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0274148 to Sung et al.
`
`(“Sung”), Ex.1008.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,427,100, Ex.1009;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,687,536, Ex.1010;
`
`i. Websters II New College Dictionary: Third Edition, (2005), Ex.1011;
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`l.
`
`U.S. 8,339,798 to Minoo et al., Ex.1012;
`
`U.S. 7,375,609, Ex.1013;
`
`U.S. 8,164,001, Ex.1014;
`
`m. U.S. 8,643,219, Ex.1017;
`
`n.
`
`o.
`
`5.
`
`U.S. 2011/0050164, Ex.1018; and
`
`U.S. 9,252,611, Ex.1019.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered:
`
`the documents listed above;
`
`the relevant legal standards, including the standard for obviousness,
`
`and any additional authoritative documents as cited in the body of this
`
`declaration; and
`
`my own knowledge and experience based upon my work in the field
`
`of wireless charging as described below.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 5 of 85
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,806,565
`
`6.
`
`Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis in any quoted material has been
`
`added.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`
`7.
`
`My complete qualifications and professional experience are described
`
`in my Curriculum Vitae, a copy of which can be found in Exhibit 1004. The
`
`following is a brief summary of my relevant qualifications and professional
`
`experience.
`
`8.
`
`I am a Principal Engineer in the Electrical Engineering and Computer
`
`Science practice at Exponent, an engineering and scientific consulting firm
`
`headquartered at 149 Commonwealth Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025. I
`
`received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of
`
`Technology (“MIT”) in 2005. I also earned S.M. and B.S. degrees in Electrical
`
`Engineering from MIT and the University of Illinois, Chicago (“UIC”),
`
`respectively.
`
`9.
`
`My master’s thesis at MIT focused on the miniaturization of power
`
`converters, by reducing the energy storage and improving the performance of
`
`inductors. As part of this work, I designed, tested, and constructed ferrite, iron-
`
`powder, and air-core inductors, while minimizing magnetic losses. During this
`
`time, I invented with my advisor, Dr. David Perreault, an electrical component
`
`with a capacitive impedance and an inductance-cancellation feature provided by
`
`6
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 6 of 85
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`magnetically coupled windings. A filter having a capacitor with inductance
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,806,565
`
`cancellation provides enhanced performance over frequency compared with
`
`conventional capacitors. This work was later extended to a second patent, with
`
`magnetically coupled windings used to improve EMI filters and common-mode
`
`chokes.
`
`10. My doctoral work at MIT centered on miniaturization of power
`
`converters and magnetics. As part of my doctoral work, I constructed and modeled
`
`planar magnetic systems, including magnetically coupled, printed magnetic coils.
`
`By incorporating such compact, magnetic structures into power converters, the
`
`resulting converter enjoyed multiple benefits, including waveform-shaping and
`
`reduction of switch stresses. Through the modeling associated with this
`
`dissertation, I become proficient in methods for analyzing the inductances of
`
`packages and interconnects, especially planar or filamentous systems of
`
`conductors.
`
`11.
`
` For my publications related to both my Master’s and Ph.D. thesis, I
`
`received the William M. Portnoy Prize Paper Award (2003) and the IEEE Power
`
`Electronics Society Transactions Prize Paper Award (2004).
`
`12. After earning my Ph.D., I joined Exponent and have led technical
`
`investigations to portable electronic devices, microcomputers, as well as industrial
`
`and consumer devices with embedded controllers. My job functions include
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 7 of 85
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`analyzing hardware and software of these devices to understand their modes of
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,806,565
`
`
`
`failure, and testifying regarding these devices in legal matters involving patents
`
`and trade secrets.
`
`13. As part of my employment at Exponent, I have performed design,
`
`design reviews, and failure analysis for wireless charging and communication
`
`systems. The focus of this work has been (1) coupling between transmitter and
`
`receiver coils from the standpoint of efficiency and magnetic-field exposure to
`
`users, in particular for the Power Matters Alliance; (2) coupling of interrogators
`
`and transponder coils in printed magnetic cards; and (3) integrated-circuit and coil
`
`failures due to wear, dimensional changes, and triboelectric charging. In addition
`
`to testifying regarding resonant and inductive wireless-power transfer, I have
`
`consulted for industry regarding coil design, RFID and near-field communication
`
`(NFC) integrated circuits, modulation methods, and on-metal RFID tags.
`
`14.
`
`I have testified regarding the software-defined features, internal
`
`circuitry, and physical embodiments of electronic equipment. Regarding
`
`electronics, I have testified regarding power electronics in communication systems,
`
`wind turbines, grid-scale photovoltaic plants, and consumer electronics. In
`
`addition, I have testified regarding control and compensation in industrial
`
`controllers, voltage regulators, and switched-mode power converters. My
`
`experience with wireless RF circuitry includes failure analysis of amplifiers, power
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 8 of 85
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`supplies, matching networks, and multiplexers in satellites, semiconductor-
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,806,565
`
`
`
`processing equipment, and medical devices.
`
`15. Regarding the mechanical elements of electronic equipment, I have
`
`testified regarding buttons and touch interfaces, connectors, linear and rotary
`
`actuators, position-measuring devices, and the design and construction of modular
`
`housings for computerized equipment and peripherals. In particular, I have
`
`testified regarding detachable components as they are constructed in relation to the
`
`housing and underlying electronic assemblies, including printed circuit boards, flex
`
`printed circuits, and other connector assemblies within the housing of electronic
`
`equipment.
`
`16.
`
`In addition to the forgoing, I perform electromagnetic assessment of
`
`utility and communication infrastructure. These issues include permitting,
`
`interference, and environmental impact of radar, AC and HVDC transmission
`
`lines, substations, photovoltaic installations, generators, broadcast antennas, and
`
`electrified mass transit systems.
`
`17.
`
`I am being compensated for my work associated with this case plus
`
`reimbursement of reasonable expenses. My compensation is not contingent on my
`
`opinions or the outcome of the case, and I have no other interest in this case or the
`
`parties thereto.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 9 of 85
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,806,565
`
`
`
`18.
`
`I understand there are multiple factors relevant to determining the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including (1) the levels of education and
`
`experience of persons working in the field at the time of the invention; (2) the
`
`sophistication of the technology; (3) the types of problems encountered in the field;
`
`and (4) the prior art solutions to those problems.
`
`19. A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the field of the
`
`’565 Patent, as of its earliest possible filing date of March 23, 2012, would have
`
`been someone knowledgeable and familiar with the wireless power arts that are
`
`pertinent to the ’565 Patent. That person would have a bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of
`
`experience working in the electrical engineering field. Lack of work experience
`
`can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.
`
`20. For purposes of this Declaration, in general, and unless otherwise
`
`noted, my statements and opinions, such as those regarding my experience and the
`
`understanding of a POSITA generally (and specifically related to the references I
`
`consulted herein), reflect the knowledge that existed in the field as of the earliest
`
`possible priority date of the ’565 Patent (i.e., March 23, 2012). Unless otherwise
`
`stated, when I provide my understanding and analysis below, it is consistent with
`
`the level of a POSITA prior to the alleged priority date of the ’565 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 10 of 85
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,806,565
`
`
`
`21.
`
`I am not an attorney. In preparing and expressing my opinions and
`
`considering the subject matter of the ’565 Patent, I am relying on certain basic
`
`legal principles that counsel have explained to me. These principles are discussed
`
`below.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that prior art to the ’565 Patent includes patents and
`
`printed publications in the relevant art that predate the priority date of the alleged
`
`invention recited in the ’565 Patent. For purposes of this Declaration, I am
`
`applying March 23, 2012 as the earliest possible priority date of the ’565 Patent.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed that a claimed invention is unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such
`
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject
`
`matter pertains. I have also been informed by counsel that the obviousness analysis
`
`takes into account factual inquiries including the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, and the differences between the prior art and
`
`the claimed subject matter.
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that the Supreme Court has
`
`recognized several rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to
`
`show obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include the
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 11 of 85
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`following: (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,806,565
`
`
`
`predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to
`
`obtain predictable results; (c) use of a known technique to improve a similar device
`
`(method, or product) in the same way; (d) applying a known technique to a known
`
`device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (e)
`
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success; and (f) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation
`
`in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art
`
`reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`25.
`
`I further understand that certain factors may support or rebut the
`
`obviousness of a claim. I understand that such secondary considerations include,
`
`among other things, commercial success of the patented invention, skepticism of
`
`those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, unexpected results of
`
`the invention, any long-felt but unsolved need in the art that was satisfied by the
`
`alleged invention, the failure of others to make the alleged invention, praise of the
`
`alleged invention by those having ordinary skill in the art, and copying of the
`
`alleged invention by others in the field. I understand that there must be a nexus—a
`
`connection—between any such secondary considerations and the alleged invention.
`
`I also understand that contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 12 of 85
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`secondary consideration tending to show obviousness.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,806,565
`
`26.
`
`I am not aware of any allegations by the named inventor of the ’565
`
`Patent or any assignee of the ’565 Patent that any secondary considerations are
`
`relevant to the obviousness analysis of any Challenged Claim of the ’565 Patent.
`
`V. BACKGROUND
`
`27. Mobile devices such as smart phones provide users with a wide
`
`variety of communication mechanisms such as phone calls, text messages, internet
`
`access, as well as providing other features. Mobile devices typically include a
`
`built-in or detachable battery pack that is chargeable. Some types of devices may
`
`be charged wirelessly using the principle of electromagnetic induction.
`
`“[E]lectromagnetic induction refers to the generation of an electric current through
`
`induction of a voltage when a magnetic field is changed around a conductor.”
`
`Ex.1001, 1:32-35. The ’565 Patent explains that the principle of electromagnetic
`
`induction has been extensively used in devices since the 1880s:
`
`A wireless power transmission or a wireless energy transfer refers to a
`technology of wirelessly transferring electric energy to desired devices.
`In the 1800's, an electric motor or a transformer employing the principle
`of electromagnetic induction has been extensively used and then a
`method of transmitting electrical energy by irradiating electromagnetic
`waves, such as radio waves or lasers, has been suggested. Actually,
`electrical toothbrushes or electrical razors, which are frequently used in
`daily life, are charged based on the principle of electromagnetic
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 13 of 85
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,806,565
`
`
`
`induction. The electromagnetic induction refers to the generation of an
`electric current through induction of a voltage when a magnetic field is
`changed around a conductor. The electromagnetic induction scheme
`has been successfully commercialized for electronic appliances having
`small sizes, but represents a problem in that the transmission distance
`of power is too short.
`
`Ex.1001, 1:22-38.
`
`28.
`
`In the context of more recent portable devices, the principle of
`
`electromagnetic induction has been applied to enable charging of a portable device
`
`as it rests on a charging pad. Typically, a coil in the wirelessly chargeable device is
`
`inductively coupled with a coil in the charging pad, and current is generated in the
`
`device’s coil and transferred to its battery. The coil in the wirelessly chargeable
`
`device is one component of several that are common to most wireless power
`
`receivers. Other common components include a magnetic layer adjacent to the coil
`
`to reduce the amount of the magnetic field leaked to the outside, an adhesive layer
`
`to attach the coil to the magnetic layer, a short-range communication antenna to
`
`facilitate near field communication, and several components that together
`
`electrically connect the coil to the load (e.g., a battery) in the chargeable device.
`
`29. As will be described in more detail below, the ’565 Patent describes
`
`and claims no more than what was already known in the art with regard to the
`
`components of common wireless power receivers.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 14 of 85
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’565 PATENT
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,806,565
`
`30. The ’565 patent generally relates to wireless power reception using
`
`electromagnetic induction. Ex.1001, Abstract, 1:21-28, 4:25-29.
`
`31.
`
`It is my opinion that the Challenged Claims of the ’565 Patent recite
`
`an obvious arrangement of components configured to carry out wireless power
`
`reception via electromagnetic induction. For example, claim 1 recites:
`
`1. A wireless power receiver comprising:
`
`a substrate comprising a receiving space of a predetermined shape
`formed therein for a connecting unit configured to connect to a wireless
`power receiving circuit;
`
`a coil unit disposed on the substrate, the coil unit comprising a first
`connection terminal, a second connection terminal, and a coil; and
`
`a short-range communication antenna disposed on the substrate and
`surrounding the coil;
`
`wherein the coil is configured to wirelessly receive power, wherein the
`coil is formed as a conductive pattern on or within the substrate,
`
`wherein the conductive pattern comprises a conductive line wound at
`least two times and conductive pattern has a spiral shape, wherein the
`first connection terminal is located at one end of the coil and the second
`connection terminal is located at the other end of the coil, wherein the
`coil unit overlaps the receiving space in a first direction perpendicular
`to an upper surface of the substrate,
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 15 of 85
`
`

`

`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,806,565
`
`
`
`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`wherein the connecting unit is disposed in the receiving space and
`connected to the coil unit,
`
`wherein the connecting unit overlaps the receiving space in a second
`direction parallel to the upper surface of the substrate, and
`
`wherein the connecting unit comprises:
`
`a third connection terminal connected to the first connection terminal
`of the coil unit; and
`
`a fourth connection terminal connected to the second connection
`terminal of the coil unit.
`
`32. The claimed “wireless power receiver” includes well-known
`
`components such as a “coil unit,” an “short-range communication antenna,” and
`
`“connection terminals” spatially arranged with respect to generic elements, such as
`
`a “receiving space” in a substrate and a “connecting unit.”
`
`33.
`
`I’ve reviewed the specification of the ’565 patent, and it does not
`
`provide many details about the components recited in the Challenged Claims. For
`
`example, the embodiment of Fig. 11 (reproduced below) broadly describes a
`
`wireless power receiver 1000 of a “portable terminal” having a receiving space 130
`
`in a substrate 100, as well as coil unit 200 with connection terminals 210 and 220
`
`and connecting unit 300 with connection terminals 310 and 320. Ex.1001, 8:16-
`
`9:10.
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 16 of 85
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,806,565
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1001, Fig. 11.
`34. The connecting unit 300 is generally described as having several
`
`different components, including first and second connection terminals and a wiring
`
`layer, that together “transfer the power received from the coil unit 200 to a load
`
`(not shown) through the wireless power receiving circuit.” Ex.1001, 5:16-30. Fig.
`
`12, below, illustrates the “the state in which the coil unit 200 and the connecting
`
`unit 300 are interconnected with each other,” where the “connecting unit 300 is
`
`disposed under the coil unit 200” in the receiving space. Ex.1001, 8:40-67.
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 17 of 85
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,806,565
`
`
`
`Ex.1001, Fig. 12.
`35. As I explain below, the concept of a wireless power receiver having
`
`
`
`these common components broadly arranged as claimed was not new as of the
`
`earliest alleged priority date of the ’565 patent.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`36.
`
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ’565
`
`Patent, the terms of the claims must first be interpreted. It is my understanding that
`
`for the purposes of this inter partes review, the claims are to be construed under
`
`the so-called Phillips standard, under which claim terms are given their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`in light of the specification and prosecution history, unless the inventor has set
`
`forth a special meaning for a term. It is my opinion that none of the claim terms
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 18 of 85
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`require a specific construction for the purposes of this declaration, and all will be
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,806,565
`
`
`
`given their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`VIII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`37.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinion as to whether the Challenged
`
`Claims of the ’565 Patent would have been obvious in view of the prior art. The
`
`discussion below provides a detailed analysis of how the prior art reference
`
`identified below teaches the limitations of the Challenged Claims of the ’565
`
`Patent.
`
`38. As part of my analysis, I have considered the scope and content of the
`
`prior art and any differences between the alleged invention and the prior art. I
`
`describe in detail below the scope and content of the prior art, as well as any
`
`differences between the alleged invention and the prior art, on an element-by-
`
`element basis for each Challenged Claims of the ’565 Patent.
`
`39. As described in detail below, the alleged invention of the Challenged
`
`Claims would have been obvious in view of the teachings of the identified prior art
`
`references as well as the knowledge of a POSITA.
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-8 and 11-18 are obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 over Hong in view of Park.
`
`1.
`
`Summary of Hong
`
`
`
`40. Like the ’565 patent, Hong describes a “contactless charging
`
`apparatus of a portable terminal.” Hong, Abstract. Hong illustrates the portable
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 19 of 85
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`terminal and its contactless charging components in Fig. 2, annotated below. Hong,
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,806,565
`
`3:36-49.
`
`Portable terminal
`
`Charging apparatus
`on main
`circuit board 20
`
`Battery 30
`
`Hong, Fig. 2 (annotated)
`41. The charging apparatus “includes a rectifying unit 13, a charging unit
`
`
`
`15, and a secondary coil 11 formed on a main circuit board 20,” as illustrated in
`
`Fig. 3 below. Hong, 4:16-19.
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 20 of 85
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Secondary coil unit
`
`
`
`Main circuit board 20
`
`
` Hong, Fig. 3 (cropped and annotated)
`
`42. Hong explains that the coil “generates an electromotive force induced
`
`by a magnetic induction field created by a contactless charger, and a direct current
`
`is applied to a battery to charge the battery using the rectifying unit and the
`
`charging unit.” Hong, Abstract.
`
`43. Hong further describes that the rectifying unit includes two
`
`“connecting terminals” to which the coil connects. Hong, 4:53-56. A “wiring
`
`layer” is disposed within the layers of the main circuit board 20 to electrically
`
`connect the inner end of the coil to a connecting terminal of the rectifying unit, as
`
`illustrated in Fig. 4 below. Hong, 5:7-24, Fig. 4.
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,806,565
`
`Rectifying unit
`
`
`Battery charging unit
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 21 of 85
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,806,565
`
`Wiring layer 27 disposed in substrate
`connecting inner end of coil 11c to
`rectifying unit 13
`
`Rectifying unit
`
`
` Hong, Fig. 4 (annotated)
`
`
`
`
`
`44. Hong explains that the rectifying unit “rectifies an alternating current
`
`induced by the secondary coil unit 11 to a direct current,” where the “rectified
`
`current … may be applied to the battery.” Hong, 4:53-67. Accordingly, as
`
`illustrated in Figs. 3 and 4 above, the wiring layer 27 and the rectifying unit 13
`
`together electrically connect the power-receiving coil to the battery charging
`
`circuit in the portable terminal. Hong, Figs. 2-4, 3:38-41, 4:59-67, 5:7-24. In other
`
`words, the electrical connection created by these components carries (and rectifies)
`
`the power inductively induced in the coil to the battery. Hong, 4:53-67.
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 22 of 85
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`
`2.
`
`Summary of Park
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,806,565
`
`
`
`45. Like Hong and the ’565 Patent, Park relates to a device for wireless
`
`charging. See Park, Abstract. Park explains in its background section that it was
`
`known to include both a wireless charging coil and NFC antenna on the same
`
`portable device: “To implement both the NFC function and the wireless charging
`
`function in a single portable terminal, an NFC antenna element taking the form of a
`
`loop antenna and a secondary coil for wireless charging should be mounted in the
`
`portable terminal.” Park, 1:54-59.
`
`46. Park describes an improvement upon this known concept: “[T]he
`
`present invention is to provide a portable terminal having a structure that facilitates
`
`mounting of a secondary coil for wireless charging and a Near Field
`
`Communication (NFC) antenna element, without increasing the thickness of the
`
`portable terminal.” Park, 2:11-15. Park does this by having “a first coil for
`
`wireless charging and a second coil for the NFC function on the same plane.”
`
`Park, 5:63-65.
`
`47. To form the wireless charging coil and NFC coil on the same plane,
`
`the underlying shielding layer 131 includes recessed accommodation grooves:
`
`“The shielding member 131 may be formed by injection molding, having first and
`
`second accommodation grooves 141 and 142 on a surface thereof. The first and
`
`second accommodation grooves 141 and 142 are circular in shape and recessed
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 23 of 85
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`into one surface of the shielding member 131.” Park, 3:35-39. “[T]he first coil 133
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,806,565
`
`
`
`is accommodated in the first accommodation groove 141 and the second coil 135 is
`
`accommodated in the second accommodation groove 142.” Park, 3:56-59. I’ve
`
`annotated the device of Park below.
`
`wireless charging
`coil 133
`
`NFC coil 135
`
`Park, Figs. 3 and 4 (annotated)
`
`recessed
`accommodation
`groove
`
`48. Accordingly, Park provides evidence that it was known for a portable
`
`device to include both a wireless charging coil and a near field communication
`
`antenna, particularly in recessed accommodation grooves on the same plane.
`
`3.
`
`Reasons to Combine Hong and Park
`
`49.
`
`It is my opinion that a POSITA would have been motivated to
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1003
`APPLE INC. / Page 24 of 85
`
`

`

`Phinney Declaration
`
`combine the teachings of Park with those of Hong. In particular, before the ’565
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,806,565
`
`
`
`patent, it would have been obvious, beneficial, and predictable for Hong’s device
`
`to include an NFC coil, as taught by Park.
`
`50.
`
`I first note that a POSITA, when considering the teachings of Hong,
`
`would have also considered the teachings of Park. Park is analogous prior art
`
`pertaining to the same field of endeavor, na

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket